|
| A K Bhattacharya: Making a difference in PMO | | Corruption charges and stasis in policy making have almost immobilised the government |
| A K Bhattacharya / New Delhi Oct 05, 2011, 00:34 IST |
|
The Union government, led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, began its second tenure in May 2009. There was hope all around as the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) had a comfortable majority and the Congress, which led the alliance, had won more Lok Sabha seats than it did in 2004. Two years and five months later, the scenario has changed. Corruption charges and stasis in policy making have almost immobilised the government. Within the government and outside, there is speculation over whether Manmohan Singh would step down before he completes his tenure in 2014. Political analysts are debating whether an early general election is on the cards.
In the midst of such a gloom-and-doom scenario for the Congress, a change of guard has taken place in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Pulok Chatterjee has returned to the PMO this week, succeeding T K A Nair as principal secretary to the PM. A change of guard usually inspires hope. The new person in charge is likely to give a new direction to the way things are done, infusing excitement and expectation of change.
Make no mistake about it. This is no ordinary change. Mr Nair joined the PMO as principal secretary soon after Manmohan Singh took oath as prime minister in May 2004. Mr Chatterjee too was part of that PMO of UPA-I, but only as a joint secretary. If Mr Nair was close to Dr Singh, Mr Chatterjee’s strength lay in his long association with UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi. If the PMO under UPA-I worked smoothly, effectively and with cohesion, it was largely because Mr Chatterjee provided that critical link between Mrs Gandhi and Dr Singh.
What changed in UPA-II? Mr Chatterjee left for the World Bank as an executive director before the formation of the UPA government in May 2009. Who would play the role of Mr Chatterjee as the link between the UPA chairperson and the prime minister? The question was raised, but there were no answers. Nor was there any replacement for Mr Chatterjee — a new appointment in PMO who could play a similar role. In retrospect, the absence of a person like Mr Chatterjee must have suited everybody else, except perhaps those who wanted better administration and governance. Manmohan Singh’s PMO in UPA-I worked not because it had Mr Nair at the helm, but because it had a close working equation with the UPA chairperson’s office through the link provided by Mr Chatterjee.
Yes, principal secretaries in the PMO do matter, but they become more effective when they also have political clout or the ability to get things done through the political leaders. Which is why Mr Chatterjee’s appointment as principal secretary to PM is significant in today’s political context. An effective principal secretary should not only be respected by the civil servants in ministries because of his seniority and competence, but more importantly, he should be seen as someone who can get things done through the political leaders. Mr Chatterjee passes the test on both counts.
Look back in time and you will realise that successful principal secretaries also enjoyed the trust of the political leadership and had the natural ability to get things done through political leaders in key positions. Amar Nath Verma, principal secretary for five years in P V Narasimha Rao’s PMO, virtually ran the government, including its economic policy agenda. Brajesh Mishra, principal secretary in Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s PMO, enjoyed similar clout. Both were respected as senior civil servants, enjoyed the trust of the political leadership and, therefore, could get things expedited through the political processes.
Is there anything that Mr Chatterjee should worry about? Remember that he has not headed any ministry as secretary during his long career as a civil servant. That may not be such a big handicap. But what could become a handicap is his lack of experience in handling economic issues. It is true that he has been with the World Bank for the last few years, but that is not the same as acquiring adequate expertise or understanding of the nitty-gritty of economic policy issues which in the Indian context can pose tricky problems. For instance, it is important that the PMO has sufficient in-house expertise on key economic policy issues to flag off areas of concern in proposals coming from any ministry. The irony is that Manmohan Silngh’s PMO has not had the benefit of a senior economic expert to scrutinise economic proposals and advise the prime minister suitably. The return of B V R Subrahmanyam as joint secretary in the PMO may help, since he has the necessary expertise in economic policy making. But in spite of that there is a strong case for a dedicated secretary in the PMO, who could assist and advise the principal secretary on all economic policy matters. Pulok Chatterjee can make a difference, but he needs someone senior to assist him on economic policy matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Read Business news in |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Content Guide
